JPA EntityManager: Why use persist() over merge()?

Question

EntityManager.merge() can insert new objects and update existing ones.

Why would one want to use persist() (which can only create new objects)?

Manzoni

techblog.bozho.net/?p=266 related – Hackett

If you like diagrams. Refer this: spitballer.blogspot.in/2010/04/… – Bethezel

Answer 1

Either way will add an entity to a PersistenceContext, the difference is in what you do with the entity afterwards.

Persist takes an entity instance, adds it to the context and makes that instance managed (i.e. future updates to the entity will be tracked).

Merge returns the managed instance that the state was merged with. It does return something that exists in PersistenceContext or creates a new instance of your entity. In any case, it will copy the state from the supplied entity, and return a managed copy. The instance you pass in will not be managed (any changes you make will not be part of the transaction - unless you call merge again). Though you can use the returned instance (managed one).

Maybe a code example will help.

MyEntity e = new MyEntity();

// scenario 1
// tran starts
em.persist(e); 
e.setSomeField(someValue); 
// tran ends, and the row for someField is updated in the database

// scenario 2
// tran starts
e = new MyEntity();
em.merge(e);
e.setSomeField(anotherValue); 
// tran ends but the row for someField is not updated in the database
// (you made the changes *after* merging)
      
// scenario 3
// tran starts
e = new MyEntity();
MyEntity e2 = em.merge(e);
e2.setSomeField(anotherValue); 
// tran ends and the row for someField is updated
// (the changes were made to e2, not e)

Scenario 1 and 3 are roughly equivalent, but there are some situations where you'd want to use Scenario 2.

Evangelista

One of dope explanations you will find freely on the internet explained by MASTER – Crista

Why would someone code like this? It makes sense to me to call setters on an entity and THEN call merge or persist...why would somebody call those BEFORE they call a setter on an entity? – Ivory

Imagine your entity is passed through multiple methods, receiving changes due to business rules. In that case, if you are sure the entity is managed (when you did merge it and kept the managed entity as your instance), none of the multiple methods need to call merge or persist, as long as the transaction is properly committed. – Tranquilizer

Answer 2

Persist and merge are for two different purposes (they aren't alternatives at all).

(edited to expand differences information)

persist:

• Insert a new register to the database
• Attach the object to the entity manager.

merge:

• Find an attached object with the same id and update it.
• If exists update and return the already attached object.
• If doesn't exist insert the new register to the database.

persist() efficiency:

• It could be more efficient for inserting a new register to a database than merge().
• It doesn't duplicates the original object.

persist() semantics:

• It makes sure that you are inserting and not updating by mistake.

Example:

{
    AnyEntity newEntity;
    AnyEntity nonAttachedEntity;
    AnyEntity attachedEntity;

    // Create a new entity and persist it        
    newEntity = new AnyEntity();
    em.persist(newEntity);

    // Save 1 to the database at next flush
    newEntity.setValue(1);

    // Create a new entity with the same Id than the persisted one.
    AnyEntity nonAttachedEntity = new AnyEntity();
    nonAttachedEntity.setId(newEntity.getId());

    // Save 2 to the database at next flush instead of 1!!!
    nonAttachedEntity.setValue(2);
    attachedEntity = em.merge(nonAttachedEntity);

    // This condition returns true
    // merge has found the already attached object (newEntity) and returns it.
    if(attachedEntity==newEntity) {
            System.out.print("They are the same object!");
    }

    // Set 3 to value
    attachedEntity.setValue(3);
    // Really, now both are the same object. Prints 3
    System.out.println(newEntity.getValue());

    // Modify the un attached object has no effect to the entity manager
    // nor to the other objects
    nonAttachedEntity.setValue(42);
}

This way only exists 1 attached object for any register in the entity manager.

merge() for an entity with an id is something like:

AnyEntity myMerge(AnyEntity entityToSave) {
    AnyEntity attached = em.find(AnyEntity.class, entityToSave.getId());
    if(attached==null) {
            attached = new AnyEntity();
            em.persist(attached);
    }
    BeanUtils.copyProperties(attached, entityToSave);

    return attached;
}

Although if connected to MySQL merge() could be as efficient as persist() using a call to INSERT with ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE option, JPA is a very high level programming and you can't assume this is going to be the case everywhere.

Wintry

Can you name a case where it's not valid to replace em.persist(x) with x = em.merge(x)? – Manzoni

persist() can throw an EntityExistsException. If you want to be sure that your code is doing an insert and not an update of the data you must use persist. – Wintry

merge() can also throw an EntityExistsException – Labiate

@None It could because it’s a RuntimeException, but it’s not mentioned in the Javadoc. – Countrified

Answer 3

If you're using the assigned generator, using merge instead of persist can cause a redundant SQL statement, therefore affecting performance.

Also, calling merge for managed entities is also a mistake since managed entities are automatically managed by Hibernate, and their state is synchronized with the database record by the dirty checking mechanism upon flushing the Persistence Context.

To understand how all this works, you should first know that Hibernate shifts the developer mindset from SQL statements to entity state transitions.

Once an entity is actively managed by Hibernate, all changes are going to be automatically propagated to the database.

Hibernate monitors currently attached entities. But for an entity to become managed, it must be in the right entity state.

To understand the JPA state transitions better, you can visualize the following diagram:

Or if you use the Hibernate specific API:

As illustrated by the above diagrams, an entity can be in one of the following four states:

• New (Transient)

A newly created object that hasn’t ever been associated with a Hibernate Session (a.k.a Persistence Context) and is not mapped to any database table row is considered to be in the New (Transient) state.

To become persisted we need to either explicitly call the EntityManager#persist method or make use of the transitive persistence mechanism.

• Persistent (Managed)

  A persistent entity has been associated with a database table row and it’s being managed by the currently running Persistence Context. Any change made to such an entity is going to be detected and propagated to the database (during the Session flush-time). With Hibernate, we no longer have to execute INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE statements. Hibernate employs a transactional write-behind working style and changes are synchronized at the very last responsible moment, during the current Session flush-time.

• Detached

Once the currently running Persistence Context is closed all the previously managed entities become detached. Successive changes will no longer be tracked and no automatic database synchronization is going to happen.

To associate a detached entity to an active Hibernate Session, you can choose one of the following options:

• Reattaching

  Hibernate (but not JPA 2.1) supports reattaching through the Session#update method.

  A Hibernate Session can only associate one Entity object for a given database row. This is because the Persistence Context acts as an in-memory cache (first level cache) and only one value (entity) is associated with a given key (entity type and database identifier).

  An entity can be reattached only if there is no other JVM object (matching the same database row) already associated with the current Hibernate Session.

• Merging

  The merge is going to copy the detached entity state (source) to a managed entity instance (destination). If the merging entity has no equivalent in the current Session, one will be fetched from the database.

  The detached object instance will continue to remain detached even after the merge operation.

• Remove

  Although JPA demands that managed entities only are allowed to be removed, Hibernate can also delete detached entities (but only through a Session#delete method call).

  A removed entity is only scheduled for deletion and the actual database DELETE statement will be executed during Session flush-time.

Lei

Thus there is no possibility to change operation order for orphanremoval=true? – Callboy

Your article about operation order in usual case. My question specific for orphanRemoval – Callboy

Check out my answer. There's nothing magic that Hibernate should do here. You just need to write the proper data access logic code. – Lei

The fact is it is impossible to explain hibernate with a diagram like that. Why cant you flush the session after detach? What happens when you try to save an already persisted entity? Why is that behavior of flush different when it comes to save and persist? There are 1000 such questions, which no one has a clear logic to. – Astrolabe

It's not difficult at all if you don't read the User Guide, and that does not apply to Hibernate only. It's the same with any technology. – Lei

@VladMihalcea Great! Can you share the differences between CascadeType.PERSIST vs CascadeType.ALL – Missymist

More details here. – Prudhoe

Answer 4

I noticed that when I used em.merge, I got a SELECT statement for every INSERT, even when there was no field that JPA was generating for me--the primary key field was a UUID that I set myself. I switched to em.persist(myEntityObject) and got just INSERT statements then.

Espousal

Makes sense since you assign the IDs and the JPA container has no idea where you got that from. There is a (small) chance that the object already exists in the database, for example in a scenario where several applications write to the same database. – Manzoni

I've faced similar issue with merge(). I had PostgreSQL database with complicated view: the view aggregated data from several tables (the tables had identical structure but different names). So JPA tried to do merge(), but actually JPA firstly made SELECT (database due to view settings could return several records with the same primary key from different tables!), then JPA (Hibernate was an implementatiion) failed: there are several records with the same key (org.hibernate.HibernateException: More than one row with the given identifier was found). In my case persist() helped me. – Aphesis

Answer 5

The JPA specification says the following about persist().

If X is a detached object, the EntityExistsException may be thrown when the persist operation is invoked, or the EntityExistsException or another PersistenceException may be thrown at flush or commit time.

So using persist() would be suitable when the object ought not to be a detached object. You might prefer to have the code throw the PersistenceException so it fails fast.

Although the specification is unclear, persist() might set the @GeneratedValue @Id for an object. merge() however must have an object with the @Id already generated.

Gains

+1 for "merge() however must have an object with the @Id already generated.". Whenever the EntityManager doesn't find a value for the object ID's field, it's persisted (inserted) into the DB. – Zig

I didnt understood this first as i wasn't clear on the states. Hope this helps someone as it did for me. docs.jboss.org/hibernate/core/3.6/reference/en-US/html/… – Bethezel

@GeneratedValue has no different implication for merge() and persist() – Sanderling

Answer 6

Some more details about merge which will help you to use merge over persist:

Returning a managed instance other than the original entity is a critical part of the merge process. If an entity instance with the same identifier already exists in the persistence context, the provider will overwrite its state with the state of the entity that is being merged, but the managed version that existed already must be returned to the client so that it can be used. If the provider did not update the Employee instance in the persistence context, any references to that instance will become inconsistent with the new state being merged in.

When merge() is invoked on a new entity, it behaves similarly to the persist() operation. It adds the entity to the persistence context, but instead of adding the original entity instance, it creates a new copy and manages that instance instead. The copy that is created by the merge() operation is persisted as if the persist() method were invoked on it.

In the presence of relationships, the merge() operation will attempt to update the managed entity to point to managed versions of the entities referenced by the detached entity. If the entity has a relationship to an object that has no persistent identity, the outcome of the merge operation is undefined. Some providers might allow the managed copy to point to the non-persistent object, whereas others might throw an exception immediately. The merge() operation can be optionally cascaded in these cases to prevent an exception from occurring. We will cover cascading of the merge() operation later in this section. If an entity being merged points to a removed entity, an IllegalArgumentException exception will be thrown.

Lazy-loading relationships are a special case in the merge operation. If a lazy-loading relationship was not triggered on an entity before it became detached, that relationship will be ignored when the entity is merged. If the relationship was triggered while managed and then set to null while the entity was detached, the managed version of the entity will likewise have the relationship cleared during the merge."

All of the above information was taken from "Pro JPA 2 Mastering the Java™ Persistence API" by Mike Keith and Merrick Schnicariol. Chapter 6. Section detachment and merging. This book is actually a second book devoted to JPA by authors. This new book has many new information then former one. I really recommed to read this book for ones who will be seriously involved with JPA. I am sorry for anonimously posting my first answer.

Pinetum

Answer 7

There are some more differences between merge and persist (I will enumerate again those already posted here):

D1. merge does not make the passed entity managed, but rather returns another instance that is managed. persist on the other side will make the passed entity managed:

//MERGE: passedEntity remains unmanaged, but newEntity will be managed
Entity newEntity = em.merge(passedEntity);

//PERSIST: passedEntity will be managed after this
em.persist(passedEntity);

D2. If you remove an entity and then decide to persist the entity back, you may do that only with persist(), because merge will throw an IllegalArgumentException.

D3. If you decided to take care manually of your IDs (e.g by using UUIDs), then a merge operation will trigger subsequent SELECT queries in order to look for existent entities with that ID, while persist may not need those queries.

D4. There are cases when you simply do not trust the code that calls your code, and in order to make sure that no data is updated, but rather is inserted, you must use persist.

Innings

Answer 8

JPA is indisputably a great simplification in the domain of enterprise applications built on the Java platform. As a developer who had to cope up with the intricacies of the old entity beans in J2EE I see the inclusion of JPA among the Java EE specifications as a big leap forward. However, while delving deeper into the JPA details I find things that are not so easy. In this article I deal with comparison of the EntityManager’s merge and persist methods whose overlapping behavior may cause confusion not only to a newbie. Furthermore I propose a generalization that sees both methods as special cases of a more general method combine.

Persisting entities

In contrast to the merge method the persist method is pretty straightforward and intuitive. The most common scenario of the persist method's usage can be summed up as follows:

"A newly created instance of the entity class is passed to the persist method. After this method returns, the entity is managed and planned for insertion into the database. It may happen at or before the transaction commits or when the flush method is called. If the entity references another entity through a relationship marked with the PERSIST cascade strategy this procedure is applied to it also."

The specification goes more into details, however, remembering them is not crucial as these details cover more or less exotic situations only.

Merging entities

In comparison to persist, the description of the merge's behavior is not so simple. There is no main scenario, as it is in the case of persist, and a programmer must remember all scenarios in order to write a correct code. It seems to me that the JPA designers wanted to have some method whose primary concern would be handling detached entities (as the opposite to the persist method that deals with newly created entities primarily.) The merge method's major task is to transfer the state from an unmanaged entity (passed as the argument) to its managed counterpart within the persistence context. This task, however, divides further into several scenarios which worsen the intelligibility of the overall method's behavior.

Instead of repeating paragraphs from the JPA specification I have prepared a flow diagram that schematically depicts the behaviour of the merge method:

So, when should I use persist and when merge?

persist

• You want the method always creates a new entity and never updates an entity. Otherwise, the method throws an exception as a consequence of primary key uniqueness violation.
• Batch processes, handling entities in a stateful manner (see Gateway pattern).
• Performance optimization

merge

• You want the method either inserts or updates an entity in the database.
• You want to handle entities in a stateless manner (data transfer objects in services)
• You want to insert a new entity that may have a reference to another entity that may but may not be created yet (relationship must be marked MERGE). For example, inserting a new photo with a reference to either a new or a preexisting album.

Tnt

What is the difference between is E managed and Does PC contain a managed version of E? – Astrolabe

Answer 9

I was getting lazyLoading exceptions on my entity because I was trying to access a lazy loaded collection that was in session.

What I would do was in a separate request, retrieve the entity from session and then try to access a collection in my jsp page which was problematic.

To alleviate this, I updated the same entity in my controller and passed it to my jsp, although I imagine when I re-saved in session that it will also be accessible though SessionScope and not throw a LazyLoadingException, a modification of example 2:

The following has worked for me:

// scenario 2 MY WAY
// tran starts
e = new MyEntity();
e = em.merge(e); // re-assign to the same entity "e"

//access e from jsp and it will work dandy!!

Clamber

Answer 10

I found this explanation from the Hibernate docs enlightening, because they contain a use case:

The usage and semantics of merge() seems to be confusing for new users. Firstly, as long as you are not trying to use object state loaded in one entity manager in another new entity manager, you should not need to use merge() at all. Some whole applications will never use this method.

Usually merge() is used in the following scenario:

• The application loads an object in the first entity manager
• the object is passed up to the presentation layer
• some modifications are made to the object
• the object is passed back down to the business logic layer
• the application persists these modifications by calling merge() in a second entity manager

Here is the exact semantic of merge():

• if there is a managed instance with the same identifier currently associated with the persistence context, copy the state of the given object onto the managed instance
• if there is no managed instance currently associated with the persistence context, try to load it from the database, or create a new managed instance
• the managed instance is returned
• the given instance does not become associated with the persistence context, it remains detached and is usually discarded

From: http://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/entitymanager/3.6/reference/en/html/objectstate.html

Chainey

Answer 11

Going through the answers there are some details missing regarding `Cascade' and id generation. See question

Also, it is worth mentioning that you can have separate Cascade annotations for merging and persisting: Cascade.MERGE and Cascade.PERSIST which will be treated according to the used method.

The spec is your friend ;)

Signboard

Answer 12

Scenario X:

Table:Spitter (One) ,Table: Spittles (Many) (Spittles is Owner of the relationship with a FK:spitter_id)

This scenario results in saving : The Spitter and both Spittles as if owned by Same Spitter.

        Spitter spitter=new Spitter();  
    Spittle spittle3=new Spittle();     
    spitter.setUsername("George");
    spitter.setPassword("test1234");
    spittle3.setSpittle("I love java 2");       
    spittle3.setSpitter(spitter);               
    dao.addSpittle(spittle3); // <--persist     
    Spittle spittle=new Spittle();
    spittle.setSpittle("I love java");
    spittle.setSpitter(spitter);        
    dao.saveSpittle(spittle); //<-- merge!!

Scenario Y:

This will save the Spitter, will save the 2 Spittles But they will not reference the same Spitter!

        Spitter spitter=new Spitter();  
    Spittle spittle3=new Spittle();     
    spitter.setUsername("George");
    spitter.setPassword("test1234");
    spittle3.setSpittle("I love java 2");       
    spittle3.setSpitter(spitter);               
    dao.save(spittle3); // <--merge!!       
    Spittle spittle=new Spittle();
    spittle.setSpittle("I love java");
    spittle.setSpitter(spitter);        
    dao.saveSpittle(spittle); //<-- merge!!

Deaconry

The spitter is an object taken from the book "Spring in Action" third Edition by Graig Walls. Spitters is persons who say something and their Spittle is what they are actually saying. So a Spitter has many spittles means that he has a list of Strings. – Deaconry

You could've used an example that's a bit more readable without reading Spring in Action... – Mcneill

You actually dont need to know what is a spittle or a spitter since on the top it is written that Spitter is a table, spitter is another table who owns.. this and that ... – Deaconry

Answer 13

Another observation:

merge() will only care about an auto-generated id(tested on IDENTITY and SEQUENCE) when a record with such an id already exists in your table. In that case merge() will try to update the record. If, however, an id is absent or is not matching any existing records, merge() will completely ignore it and ask a db to allocate a new one. This is sometimes a source of a lot of bugs. Do not use merge() to force an id for a new record.

persist() on the other hand will never let you even pass an id to it. It will fail immediately. In my case, it's:

Caused by: org.hibernate.PersistentObjectException: detached entity passed to persist

hibernate-jpa javadoc has a hint:

Throws: javax.persistence.EntityExistsException - if the entity already exists. (If the entity already exists, the EntityExistsException may be thrown when the persist operation is invoked, or the EntityExistsException or another PersistenceException may be thrown at flush or commit time.)

Thirteen

It you're not using auto generated IDs, you'd have to manually give your new Entity an ID. persist() won't complain that it has an ID, it only complains when something with the same ID is in the database already. – Groggery

Answer 14

You may have come here for advice on when to use persist and when to use merge. I think that it depends the situation: how likely is it that you need to create a new record and how hard is it to retrieve persisted data.

Let's presume you can use a natural key/identifier.

• Data needs to be persisted, but once in a while a record exists and an update is called for. In this case you could try a persist and if it throws an EntityExistsException, you look it up and combine the data:

  try { entityManager.persist(entity) }

  catch(EntityExistsException exception) { /* retrieve and merge */ }

• Persisted data needs to be updated, but once in a while there is no record for the data yet. In this case you look it up, and do a persist if the entity is missing:

  entity = entityManager.find(key);

  if (entity == null) { entityManager.persist(entity); }

  else { /* merge */ }

If you don't have natural key/identifier, you'll have a harder time to figure out whether the entity exist or not, or how to look it up.

The merges can be dealt with in two ways, too:

1. If the changes are usually small, apply them to the managed entity.
2. If changes are common, copy the ID from the persisted entity, as well as unaltered data. Then call EntityManager::merge() to replace the old content.

Dying

Answer 15

persist(entity) should be used with totally new entities, to add them to DB (if entity already exists in DB there will be EntityExistsException throw).

merge(entity) should be used, to put entity back to persistence context if the entity was detached and was changed.

Probably persist is generating INSERT sql statement and merge UPDATE sql statement (but i'm not sure).

Heisenberg

This is incorrect. If you call merge(e) on a new e, it must be persisted. – Extinction

@PedroLamarão warren.chinalle.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/… – Heisenberg

From JPA specification version 2.1, section 3.2.7.1, second bullet: "If X is a new entity instance, a new managed entity instance X' is created and the state of X is copied into the new managed entity instance X'." – Extinction

Answer 16

Merge won't update a passed entity, unless this entity is managed. Even if entity ID is set to an existing DB record, a new record will be created in a database.

Lilianaliliane